Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Is the 80% upper route worth it in the long run??

Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by Tesoro, Mar 20, 2016.

  1. Tesoro

    Tesoro Grants Pass Member

    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    29
    I live in Grants Pass so of course I have a Noveske..I am changing my views on what type of firearms to concentrate on and am leaning to more interchangeable AR platforms for practicality and for the fun of modding them out etc etc

    Now many of us prefer to have unregistered firearms. I am thinking I 'missed the boat' by not buying some private buy lowers earlier this year before Oregon started up the mandatory private sale registration BS. So I have been pondering about getting some 80% lowers to counter my tardiness.

    But I get to thinking why do this 80% bit? What is the long term advantage? I can see people wanting to own legal AR's that arent tagged to you in some fed database but the cost savings by 'makin yer own' isnt really worth the extra hassle. But what good is an 80%'er going to do you in the long run? The only answer I can think of is in the event that the state/fed decides to ban ownership of 'assault military type weapons', and force buybacks etc then the people who went the 80% route will then own true ghost guns. Understandable.

    However I would be willing to make a large bet that if the govt decides to outlaw these AR type weapons then they will at the same time implement some debilitating Class 10 type felony penalties for being in possession of one of them after their grace period expires or whatever. So will I be willing to act as a potential felon in the future just so I can have an AR stashed/buried to take on the federal 'troops' ? nope!...I think I will cut up my AR's and give to the govt and stick with my just as lethal but legal 'sporting' rifles and shotguns.

    I write this as I have had first hand experience in this scenario. I lived in a British law country for many years where ownership any type of semi automatic military type weapon had been banned years ago. The penalty of possessing one just wasnt worth it unless you were a true criminal...being immediate incarceration with a mandatory minimum one year sentence on first offense. Additionally the police had complete search rights of person and property upon suspicion of anyone possessing prohibited weapons. Pretty draconian for sure but then I see we have similar laws in the US for terrorism that are slowly bleeding over to non typical terrorist activities. I saw on tv the other day the Alaska judge state that he was considering charging the drunken native who drove into the dog sled race with an 'act of terrorism'. Go figure that one out..!

    I am not trying to fire up another millionth take away my assault rifle thread but just asking for input into my 80% quandry. Am I missing something ?
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2016
  2. JustShoot

    JustShoot Oregon . Hillsborito area Active Member

    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    136
    Monetarily No . It is only a statement of being no-conformist/participant with flying under the radar .
    .
     
  3. ZigZagZeke

    ZigZagZeke Eugene Silver Supporter Silver Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,706
    Likes Received:
    3,544
    80% upper?
     
  4. Tesoro

    Tesoro Grants Pass Member

    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    29
    OOPS!! cant edit the header...
     
  5. rick benjamin

    rick benjamin USA, Or, Damascus Secure the drama Silver Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    2,777
  6. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,108
    Likes Received:
    6,924
    It depends on what you think the future holds.

    It also depends on how many firearms you have that are not on some gov. list with your name associated with them, if any. And vice versa.

    Finally, it depends on how far you are willing to go to hang on to firearms you have at the point where the gov. is going door to door to confiscate firearms.

    If/when the gov. starts knocking on doors, any firearms that you currently have, that are not associated with your name, will not be on a list of firearms they are looking for. At that point, you would not need to account for them and you could, theoretically/hypothetically/possibly hide them somewhere (hopefully not within your house) that they cannot find them. I am sure that the gov. would also search for and confiscate any firearms they find, on a list or not.

    So - it all depends on your mental state at that point in time.

    Currently I don't know of any general population confiscations ongoing within the USA. There are a few where people with domestic violence orders against them (or similar orders) have had firearms confiscated. Connecticut is maybe the closest to a general confiscation happening in the future - but at this point only warning letters have been sent to firearms owners that they need to register or otherwise comply with the law.

    That said, it is a possibility, and it doesn't hurt to have firearms that are not "on the books". How much that is worth to you depends on you.
     
    ZigZagZeke likes this.
  7. Reno911

    Reno911 Hillsboro Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    1,653
    Likes Received:
    1,720
    The only thing I see owning one being good for is if your 100% flying off the books.

    I do not see the point if you have already purchased a gun through legal means. IE, if your on someones books, your on the books.

    You can hide a regularly owned gun just as easily as a never on the books gun.

    Bury it in the backyard. Done. They come a searching, you bet they are going to be a searching. Doubt they will check 5 feet below by the fir tree in the backyard...

    Like I said above, unless you have never bought a gun through a background check. Never paid for anything online related to our hobby. Never been on this site or any other site related to firearm ownership. Live out in the boons with no cell service or internet connectivity. Simply put, you don't really have a footprint so neither will the firearm.

    In that case, sure.

    Reason 2, because you want to build it. IE, the hobby mentality. Its your thing to want to try and do it. In that case, rock on dude. More power to you.

    In my opinion, with Anderson Manufacturing lower receivers readily available at less than 100 dollars. I see no point in my opinion to want to go the 80% route.
     
    Dyjital likes this.
  8. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,547
    Likes Received:
    19,874
    I haven't done one myself, but I'd like to some time. I agree with the others that, first and foremost, it is kind of a middle finger to the gun grabbers. Second, it does, in my opinion, help you to become even more familiar with the gun you're building. Ultimately, I like it because we have enough government incursion into our rights as it is and anything that helps keep our freedoms 'free', is something I like.
     
  9. Tesoro

    Tesoro Grants Pass Member

    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    29
    All very true. All I can hope for is that the Oregon Marine Board is assigned firearms record keeping.
     
    jbett98 likes this.
  10. jbett98

    jbett98 NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,472
    Likes Received:
    7,699
    You have already stated that you have regrets for not picking up some pre 8/9/15 undocumented 100% lowers, so investing a couple of hundred now for some 80% lowers and a jig while they're still allowed seems like a good idea.
    You don't have to build them, just store them for a future rainy day project.
     
    Dyjital likes this.
  11. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,108
    Likes Received:
    6,924
    You can hide any firearm - but hiding it is only half the battle.

    If you bought it after the BGC law went on the books, then you need to account for its disposition if the gov. decides to start confiscating firearms. If you can't account for it - i.e., if you didn't sell it through the BGC/FFL process - they you are vulnerable legally - at the very least they can and probably would charge you with some violation of the law, depending on what is contained within the law they pass before they decide to confiscate firearms.

    It just depends a lot on the individual.

    Some people will give up whatever firearms they have. Some will give up only those that are "on the books" - i.e., those the gov. can hold them legally liable for, and hide the rest. Some won't give up anything. Some will move - if they can (if the law isn't federal).

    Having firearms that are not on the books, even if you have some that are on the books, gives a person options in how they decide to respond to any confiscation efforts.

    Personally, unless there is a federal law passed, I don't see confiscation happening anytime soon - there are too many ways around it. I don't see it happening at the federal level either, unless there is a major change in the makeup of Congress during future elections.
     
  12. jbett98

    jbett98 NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,472
    Likes Received:
    7,699
    Hillary will go after the assault weapons just like Bill did, except I think she will try to impose a California 10 rd mag limit/bullet button law nationwide.
    As I type, I'm looking at an AR mag that my neighbor just gave me the other day.
    It's a brand new post ban 10rd Bushmaster magazine that can't be taken apart.
    It's has a weird two piece metal body that has a plastic filler block pinned inside.
    I hope that's not our future, as this mag is junk.
     
  13. Tesoro

    Tesoro Grants Pass Member

    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    29
    That I WILL do!
     
    Dyjital likes this.
  14. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,108
    Likes Received:
    6,924
    Hillary can go after whatever she wants.

    It is Congress that passes the laws.
     
    Koda likes this.
  15. Reno911

    Reno911 Hillsboro Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    1,653
    Likes Received:
    1,720
    Good point.

    Well on that note, hide one that was purchased legally before the new law. Which for most here is many of there firearms. I would hope.

    I am going to say that the .gov type likely know where to look if something like a confiscation where to happen. It would not be hard to utilize the internet to hone in on those that are easily targeted due to their footprint. That is, if they go full blown stupid mode.

    I don't think it will ever happen, but if a confiscation did happen stateside, I don't see it going as smoothly as Australia's did.

    Other than further derailing this thread. I would say I agree with The Heteric, and say it is truly up to the feelings of the OP whether or not he feels that needing an additional or maybe 1st off the radar AR lower is needed. My tinfoil hat is rather large, so I would say if you don;t already own pre-universal BCG firearms bought through private party, than maybe this is something you may want to consider if you fear the .gov enough. That or find a willing seller that is in the WNC following.
     
  16. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,108
    Likes Received:
    6,924
    Bought through a private party or an FFL - if it was bought before the BGC law then a defense is that you sold it before the BGC went into effect. You don't have to account for a non-NFA firearm you sold before the law went into effect - no matter where you bought it.

    If you move to another state - even for just one year - that doesn't have laws where you need to go through BGCs/FFLs for private - then a plausible defense is that you sold your firearms while a resident in that state. Also, you don't have to account for firearms you bought while a resident in another state.

    This is one reason why a confiscation law would need to be federal to be effective - or every state would need to have similar laws. I don't see either even happening any time soon, but I could be wrong.

    Personally, assuming there are no federal bans/etc., when I retire in about 5 years, I will declare my residency in S. Dakota, even though I will own property here.